If all 2.0 has is an "improved security model", then it really doesn't
qualify as a 2.0 product, does it? I don't see even one concern anywhere on
the net expressing concern over the security of FW. Where are these real
people who are in need of this feature?
How have they expressed their concern?
Is all this work you all have done just to satisfy a couple of situations
that could be handled other ways?
Sorry, but I don't know of any sales-smart company that uses the tactic you
suggest - "release early, release often" except for current release patches.
That tactic has never worked for a major (or even minor) end-user product.
All it does is confuse end-users who don't know if they have the most
current version. It's an IT nightmare trying to get everyone on the same
version under that scenario.
Packaging has to be constantly updated, sales staff have to be versed on
changes on a too-frequent basis, and customers tire quickly of notification
and requirements.
We've worked with 3rd parties who push releases out the door evey couple of
weeks, and it's always been nothing but a nightmare for us, since we have to
incorporate their product into ours. Same goes with FW. All it demonstrates
to us is that they can't get things right the first time, and have to keep
patching and patching. But even then, they don't increment their major
release number.
Major releases, like going from V1 to V2 always try to pack in some
significant, newsworthy functions.
Anyway, the point here is simple. FW 2.0 has nothing new on the surface for
the majority of users, I'd wager. The interface continues to be boring
(sorry, but there's no better word) and fairly unfriendly. Sure, I suppose
it has a lot of significant underlying changes that make it better (except
for the fact that apparently page delivery with WikiTalked pages is now
slower - and that's going to be newsworthy).
I don't think FW has much of a user base anyway, so the majority likely
don't have a need for a new version. You don't hear about FW anywhere on the
net. Most Google searches turn up very old topics and we're lucky to see
more than two results per month under Google Groups, so why release until
you can make some noise?
If FW is just a programming exercise then fine, go ahead and release it. But
certainly don't expect anything.
Once released as a 2.0 version, you have a long struggle ahead to convince
people to use FW when you actually do start adding some end-user,
business-oriented functionality.
I was attracted to FW because it was:
1. .NET
2. Simple, simple, simple to deploy on both intranets and public hosts.
But, it has no user-friendly editor, doesn't support documents and doc
management, doesn't support projects (at least, not so an average person can
configure them) and several other things I've mentioned in the past, so
what's the reason for anyone to embrace it?
Again, JMO...
_____
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jimmy
Sieben
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 6:58 PM
To: FlexWiki Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Flexwiki-users] I think we should ship RC0
The major feature of 2.0 is the security model. There are real people that
are in need of this feature, and would love to see an approved build ship.
Many successful projects employ the release early, release often strategy.
The idea isn't to wait until you have a killer product and ship it. Rather,
keep shipping features on a regular basis to incrementally improve the
project over time. There are many reasons for this, but one chief reason is
that a series of incremental releases can be achieved with much less effort
than a single monumental release. That single release takes much more than
the sum total of all releases before it, because so many of the features
have not been tested in the real world. By using incremental releases, a
project can steadily improve functionality over time.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fred
Dalgleish
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 8:43 PM
To: 'FlexWiki Users Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [Flexwiki-users] I think we should ship RC0
My two cents - this'll probably rile you up...
Don't ship until it works correctly or is the best you can make it. Nobody
needs 2.0 if they are working with 1.8 so there's no urgency. Don't pull a
Microsoft here and release something just "because".
You are just heading for a bad rap if you do. Fix the problems and get the
user interface up to par (you've seen my comments on this before). FlexWiki
has a long, long way to go before it will be a "wow" product, and most of
that path is making it work for business as a business tool, not as a social
commentary product.
Releasing a 2.0 version that, on the surface, is just 1.8 with some fixes
just isn't going to excite anyone in the Wiki world...
I've watched the way you guys have been working on this, and you are all
brilliant, so I just don't understand why you don't put your heads together
and spec out something that will really blow everybody away.
Otherwise, call it 1.9 and let it go at that.
JMO
Fred
_____
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig
Andera
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 1:14 PM
To: 'FlexWiki Users Mailing List'
Subject: [Flexwiki-users] I think we should ship RC0
It's been a bit quiet here lately. I've been on travel, but am back and am
working on FlexWiki again. So here's what I'm thinking: we never did reach a
conclusion about performance, other than to say that it's good overall, but
that there definitely exist cases where it's enough worse than 1.8 soas to
be unusable for some wikis. To that end, I've started working on an
implementation of output caching. It's going well so far.
But here's the deal: I don't think we should wait for it. I think we should
stamp the current bits 2.0 RC0 and ship them, with the idea that output
caching will simply not be part of 2.0. It'll be in 2.2 (2.1 will be an
"unstable" release). I think this is a good idea for several reasons:
1) I think that most wikis don't make use of the sort of heavy-duty
WikiTalk that has problems. Those that do are unlikely to run to thousands
of topics, which is when the problem manifests. Those that do should be
testing before deploying anyway.
2) In the open source world, there's a lot to be said for momentum.
That means shipping often.
3) Even when I do complete output caching, the first render is going to
be extremely slow for certain cases, unless we make radical changes to the
way WikiTalk is evaluated.
Here are the two other features I think we might want to have in an RTW that
aren't there now:
1) Web-based administration of flexwiki.config. Derek has this on his
list to do at some point. It's not a particularly big job.
2) Upgrade support. I.e. when someone installs 2.0 over 1.8, we could
try to slurp their values from NamespaceMap.xml and web.config into
flexwiki.config, to the extent possible.
Does anyone think shipping an RC0 based on the current bits is a bad idea?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Flexwiki-users mailing list
Flexwiki-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flexwiki-users
